9/11 victims deserved their fate

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Oh goody.

Even Bertrand Russell and Jean Pual Sartre could convene a war crimes tribunal during the Viet Nam War, rather than assume that all Americans are guilty by virtue of being Americans, or that anyone who chooses to work in America is de facto 'guilty' of something.


Tell me seriously- had you known anyone who worked in the buildings attacked or been related to anyone who was killed, would you feel so adamant about their guilt ?

Because what you're suggesting is in line with some of the thinking I heard from other (right wing) Americans to justify non-combatant and civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hilariously, they suggested that civilians were 'guilty' of not rebelling against the Taleban government and Saddam Hussein's regime, and that therefore their deaths in bombing raids or because of a shortage of medical supplies or food were justifiable.

In my world everyone gets a hearing and the right to defend themselves. However unjust it may seem, the rich and the odious deserve a trial as much as the political prisoner and the wretched of the earth.

Otherwise all you have left is chaos and the lex talionis.

It seems impossible for me to argue that the victims of 9-11 shared some responsibility for the actions of the US, while not deserving to die.

[PeteH]

So being upset about something one sees as wrong justifies own wrong-doings?

Unless you happen to hold some position of authority I am unaware of, neither of us is in a position to justify anything. I am not trying to justify their actions, I am just pointing out that from a non-American point of view, the attacks may have seemed perfectly reasonable, even restrained.

I think the killing on both sides is 'wrong' but there are those on both sides that can fully rationalize their actions. I have no interest in that. However, since I do currently live in America and hear the cultural values being pushed forward which will perpetuate the conflict, I will do what I can to end it. I am not a pacifist, but I believe killing is something that is serious, and should be done out of necessity not for political expedience.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by PeteH
Unless you happen to hold some position of authority I am unaware of, neither of us is in a position to justify anything. I am not trying to justify their actions, I am just pointing out that from a non-American point of view, the attacks may have seemed perfectly reasonable, even restrained.

I think the killing on both sides is 'wrong' but there are those on both sides that can fully rationalize their actions. I have no interest in that. However, since I do currently live in America and hear the cultural values being pushed forward which will perpetuate the conflict, I will do what I can to end it. I am not a pacifist, but I believe killing is something that is serious, and should be done out of necessity not for political expedience.

Well, that a terrorist views his actions as reasonable doesn't make it so. Then everyone could commit crimes and rationalize them in some way. Yes, here you can come in and tell the same for US actions. And I respect you for being critical to your own gouvernment (I'm not really a Bush fan either).

I just think it makes no sense to follow the logic of the terrorists, because then I see no reason why the US should not react in a similar way. I rather would criticize both sides then. I don't understand why I should accept the actions/views of the terrorists just because I do not accept the US actions/views in some fields (as this Churchill guy seems to do).

[Agathon]

Oh come on - every country does this. It isn't a judgement about the value of those who died. Of course people want to know if their relatives abroad could be affected....

Actually they don't. At least not in the same way it is done in the US.

[Agathon]

Explain to me again why only a democracy could have a working judiciary? It seems to me plenty of non-democratic regimes have had working ones.

I never said that.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
Actually they don't. At least not in the same way it is done in the US.

BS... every country will supply the known numbers of their own countryman in news stories like this.

Just more of the typical america is worse crap... but since you posted it.. it's easy to ignore

[Agathon]

BS... every country will supply the known numbers of their own countryman in news stories like this.

Yes, but in Canada they have the decorum to wait a suitable time.

Just more of the typical america is worse crap... but since you posted it.. it's easy to ignore

Like you just did.

* reels another one in.

Hmm... a fine day for fishing.

[Berzerker]

Aggie

First, you can't not be for democracy if you want a functional judiciary..

I never said that.

Let me know when you settle on one position.

That's not my point. When you vote these people in, they become the agents of the state; a minimalist state, but a state nonetheless - and that means that they act in your, and everyone else's stead.

Not when they act illegally, even you said their illegal actions - outside of the Constitution - mean the people are no longer responsible for their actions.

If you do not accept this, then you deny that the state has the power to compel people to make restitution when they violate others' rights. That is the whole point of a judicial system, and you cannot have one unless certain people in a society are granted this power.

But in a libertarian system this power of the government derives from the power of individuals, not "democracy" or your "social contract".

Now, as it happens, there is no such thing as an infallible judiciary. Wrongful convictions will occur both through (a) corruption and through (b) honest mistakes which are no-ones fault. In both these cases restitution will have to be made to the victims.

By whom is the question, you think the people who oppose the system are responsible. They aren't, the people who run the system are responsible.

In the case of (a) it is doubtful that those who were corrupt have sufficient means to make such restitution. Who's going to pay? Should it not be the people who elected them in recognition of their poor judgement?

But you believe these people who elected them in include the people who voted to unelect them or didn't vote at all.

And that has to be every citizen, since every citizen consents to the result of the election by participating in it with the expectation that their vote will be counted.

You said people who don't vote are guilty too.

In the case of (b) it is even clear: if the state does wrong unintentionally, then it is up to the state to make restitution. But the state officials are just representatives of the people, carrying out the public will. If you want judges to pay out of their own pocket for their honest mistakes, no-one will want to be a judge. If you want judges, you will have to foot the bill for their mistakes.

But you said we aren't responsible once the government acts outside of the Constitution.

More to the point, everyone will have to foot the bill for judicial mistakes as a voluntary scheme will simply not work (people will free ride).

What will or will not work is a different issue, you cannot accuse people of guilt just because its easier for you.

In any case, you have simply not shown how you are not responsible for the acts of the elected government, since your participation in the election and your willingness to appeal to the state for justice show that you consent to the result of either process as long as it is arrived at fairly.

I don't have to show anything, the burden of proof is on you. You claim people are responsible for politicians they oppose and that's just loony.

It is similar to how the owners of a corporation are liable for the mistakes of their employees, because the employees are not acting as individuals, but as agents of the corporation. In the case of society, a Libertarian state is a corporation owned by everyone, created in order to secure certain goods for each member (the ability to seek justice and protection) and the agents of this company are employees and act on your behalf.

That doesn't help your argument, the owner hired the employee. But you say the people who didn't vote or voted against hiring the employee (politician) are responsible.

As for the social contract, it is the only justification for a state available to Libertarians. In order to secure the practical ability to hold others liable for violating our rights, we give the same ability to all others, and the only way to do this is to voluntarily give to some selected set of people the power to coerce and punish wrongdoers.

Now you're equating a "social contract" that rejects freedom with a different system that embraces it.

I don't think you really understand Libertarianism at all.

I'm not the one arguing that libertarianism embraces your "social contract".

Kid

I can say I'm opposed to jerking off all I want, but if I do it then I'm responsible.

How does that make the person opposed to it responsible?

Molly

Yes, but where is the tribal slaughter bit ? Besides which, the Sandinista-Miskito conflict isn't really germane, and is rightfully a subject for a different thread.

Even the Colorado chapter of AIM which was supportive of the revolution in Nicaragua came to oppose the Sandinistas for their brutality. Hundreds were killed and ~20,000 were driven away from their homes and their villages destroyed. What do you want to qualify as slaughter?

"These included Miskito Indians who had suffered land confiscation and massacres at the hands of the Sandinista army"

https://www.theidyllic.com/php/article.php?article=37

"This Sandinista repression of Nicaraguan Indians was so blatant it even got some American human rights activists who otherwise seldom criticized the Sandinistas, and American Indians, to condemn or at least "vigorously admonish" the Sandinista comandantes over their actions. The critical datum is that for Menchu the Sandinistas were quite right to burn villages, kill and resettle Miskitos and others who resisted their dictates because their (Sandinista) Marxist cause was right. Human rights of Indians gave way to Marxist political objectives. Period."

wais.stanford.edu/LatinAmerica/latinamerica022204.htm

In any case, for Repugs to justify arming and aiding Contra terrorists to combat social injustice is rather ironic, don't you think?

And irrelevant.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid

How does that make the person opposed to it responsible?

How does being opposed to something make them not responsible? If I offer you $1 to give me a ride to go murder people, and you take it aren't you partially responsible even if you oppose murder.

[Berzerker]

Kid

How does being opposed to something make them not responsible? If I offer you $1 to give me a ride to go murder people, and you take it aren't you partially responsible even if you oppose murder.

You didn't answer my question, you changed your argument. Tell me why a person who is opposed to "jerking off" is responsible when a person who says they oppose it and then does it.

[Agathon]

Let me know when you settle on one position.

Don't quibble. You know that I don't happen to think that judiciaries in non-democractic societies are up to much.

Not when they act illegally, even you said their illegal actions - outside of the Constitution - mean the people are no longer responsible for their actions.

It depends. In the case of gross violations, surely not. But they are granted considerable freedom of action in any case, and bad things are likely to happen even if they do hold to the constitution.

But in a libertarian system this power of the government derives from the power of individuals, not "democracy" or your "social contract".

That is the essence of social contract theory. Even Locke, the primary source for modern Libertarianism has a social contract theory.

By whom is the question, you think the people who oppose the system are responsible. They aren't, the people who run the system are responsible.

They are: they voted for them.

But you believe these people who elected them in include the people who voted to unelect them or didn't vote at all.

It includes the people who voted otherwise because they voluntarily agreed, by the very act of voting, to accept the representatives of the winning side as the legitimate authority. If they didn't then they were voting fraudulently and could not have complained if they had won and the other side had ignored the result.

In other words, if you vote, you accept the rules of the game by voting.

If you don't vote, you must still accept the authority of the state to make laws and punish people, because if you didn't there would be no possibility of practically enforcing the law (since Libertarianism does not allow individuals to punish others, but only the state as the representatives of the general will).

You said people who don't vote are guilty too.

Of course they are, they should have voted. It is the responsibility of every citizen to vote. If they don't they cannot complain about the goverment, but not voting does not magically absolve them of responsibility for their own government's actions.

In a democracy, the people are responsible for electing the government.
But you said we aren't responsible once the government acts outside of the Constitution.

It should be obvious that only intentional wrongdoing absolves people. But government agents can unintentionally do people wrong. So the point stands.

What will or will not work is a different issue, you cannot accuse people of guilt just because its easier for you.

That's avoiding the question. Who pays when the government does someone wrong unintentionally?

The burden of proof is on you. You claim people are responsible for politicians they oppose and that's just loony.

No. It is called democracy.

When you vote, do you expect that the voting process will be governed by rules of fairness such that your vote will count as much as anyone else's?

If you say no, then you don't believe in democracy.

If you say yes, then you have agreed that the election is a legitimate decision making procedure and that any decision made by it is legitimate.

Therefore: if your side doesn't win, you must accept that the winners are the legitimate government, just as they must accept that your side is, if you win.

Therefore: they are your government and their actions are legitimized by everyone who voted, even if they voted against them (again, because everyone agreed to certain rules of fairness in the process).

That doesn't help your argument, the owner hired the employee. But you say the people who didn't vote or voted against hiring the employee (politician) are responsible.

Yes it does. Company boards (and political cabinets) assume collective responsibility for democratic decisions they make. Corporations also assume responsibility for decisions made according to their internal rules.

If a company hires an incompetent as an employee, and the incompetent damages the property of the a person who has contracted with the company, the company is responsible for paying for the damage whether or not the incompetent person can pay for it.

Similarly, if a body of people elect a government through a process they all agree is fair, and that government's agents commit some wrong to someone they contract with as the government, the owners of the government (i.e. us) are responsible for making recompense, whether or not the damage done can be compensated by the specific individuals who caused it.

In extreme cases a corporation can disavow responsibility for a "rogue" employee, but you well know that such circumstances are rare and involve gross and unforeseeable events.

Now you're equating a "social contract" that rejects freedom with a different system that embraces it.

Nope. Wrong again. The social contract is the means by which freedom is secured. Everyone agrees to give up certain freedoms (the freedom to coerce others) to the state, in order that the state can punish those who violate the rights of others by coercion (i.e. execution, imprisonment).

Libertarianism allows you to kill in self defense, it does not allow you to conduct personal trials and executions of criminals who wrong you. Such things can only be carried out by legitimate authorities (courts), and that means by people whom everyone has agreed (either by consensus, or by agreeing to fair elections) to cede those powers.

I'm not the one arguing that libertarianism embraces your "social contract".

Which is exactly the reason you don't understand it.

[Agathon]

Here's an argument by a well-known Libertarian stating that the social contract is fundamental to Libertarianism

http://www.againstpolitics.com/jan_narveson/narveson_gauthier.html

[Agathon]

But I'm not even advocating that kind of position.

My position is simply that to have a functioning minimalist state in a Libertarian society, the citizens of such a society must agree to give up certain coercive powers to officials. If they don't do this, they will end up in a state of nature where no-one's rights are protected.

You can't just allow people to decide that the judicial system doesn't apply to them, for example. In order to make sure that people don't act that way, the judicial system needs coercive powers in order to punish people who do.

All that libertarianism requires is that such officials be appointed in a manner that is not inconsistent with natural rights. Elections are the most sensible answer.

No Libertarian can disagree in principle with this scheme, because it doesn't violate anyone's natural rights. You cannot complain that a court is prosecuting you for violating someone else's rights, unless you don't have a say in who is on the court. If you do have an equal say, along with every other citizen, you cannot complain - the court was appointed according to the only fair and reasonable process available - a process you agreed to by voting.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Molly

Even the Colorado chapter of AIM which was supportive of the revolution in Nicaragua came to oppose the Sandinistas for their brutality. Hundreds were killed and ~20,000 were driven away from their homes and their villages destroyed. What do you want to qualify as slaughter?

And irrelevant.

Actually it isn't irrelevant- one doesn't justify having aided and armed the Somoza regime and then Contra terrorists by anachronistically justifying one's action based on what the Sandinistas did after they came to power.

At least not outside the looking glass world of Republican politics.

I was in fact asking where was the 'tribal slaughter' reference in the link you posted. Pardon me for not being more obvious.


In any case all you're doing is catching up on the history I already knew about, and in more detail. Not all of us in the Nicaraguan Solidarity Campaign wore ideological blinkers. And note- that's 'Nicaraguan', not 'Sandinistan' solidarity.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid

You didn't answer my question, you changed your argument. Tell me why a person who is opposed to "jerking off" is responsible when a person who says they oppose it and then does it.

No you are changing my argument. Americans today are no different from Americans in the past who have hunted down Native American children like they were animals, enslaved African Americans, commited complete innocent Japanese to internment camps, dropped nukes on people, used violence against the working class for struggling for a living wage, deported and used violence against other peoples who they thought would contaminate their society, used our military to buly and force other nations to accept govts that were favorable, and more. Americans are not different today than they have been in the past. Don't tell me they are innocent. You know what they do. Yet you live your life like they don't do those things, and even defend them.